JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No it wasn't. The message she was sending out before was pretty much right between the goalposts I set up last week: that all her failure was the fault of obstructionist judges and evil government oppression and coverup, not her lousy lawyering. She's practicing pseudo-law and expecting to somehow be given full credit for her inept attempts. She whines that her cases aren't being heard "on their merits" when in fact she can't manage to write a simple pleading correctly to get to that point of the process.
Again Birther pseudo-lawyers seem to fall into the same category as pseudo-scientists. They seem to think their level of mediocrity is acceptable and common. Therefore they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Not so -- one is required to demonstrate competence before one is taken seriously.
Perhaps, but I would think she's smarter than that. The Republican party has never endorsed or supported her efforts, and GOP candidates (with the exception of Donald Trump) long ago stopped suggesting Barack Obama was ineligible. While Birthers unanimously are sympathetic to GOP candidates and causes, especially to the Tea Party faction, the GOP at large does not endorse or support Birtherism.
Personally I think she's currying sympathy in order to drum up more donations. The free-energy hucksters do this too: "Looks like we're not going to make it to market because we've run short of money and we don't know how we're going to pay for it. Our dream is dead, blah blah blah, and Big Energy has oppressed us blah blah into silence." She's ladling on the "fight the good fight" rhetoric fairly heavily, and it looks like people are still buying into it.
I'm sure her endless screeching at judges in their own courtrooms helps that along just fine.
Pseudo-scientists railing against the so-called scientific establishment is one thing. That's just an exchange of words. Pseudo-lawyers railing against judges in court or in pleadings is tantamount to slathering oneself in barbecue sauce and jumping into a den of hungry lions. Judges have real power, and listen carefully to the respected local attorneys who practice before them. I don't think Orly Taitz understands just how hot the fire is she's playing with.
Given her notorious reputation, I'm amazed at how many courts admit her pro hac vice, and of those how few sanction her sponsoring attorney when she is admonished. We could also discuss the lax standards of the California Bar, but that would exceed the scope of Birther trials. However in this case, should she face official disclipline from the Mississippi Bar, the California Bar would have a hard time ignoring it.
Taitz wants to easily shift roles between representative counsel and co-plaintiff. This is technically allowed in most jurisdictions, but requires careful lawyering in order to avoid conflict of interest. Orly Taitz is not demonstrably capable of careful lawyering. But she seems to do this when her pro hac vice motion runs afoul, then wonders why her cases are dismissed for her lack of standing.
Interestingly, I believe Taitz' representation contract includes a waiver of liability arising out of her representation (i.e., basically indemnifying her against malpractice), which is expressly forbidden by many state bar associations. But in any case I agree with hitting her where it hurts most. Perhaps her donations will dry up even further when her prospective donors are made to understand that their money is going to pay opposing counsel for the waste of time and for sanctions arising out of her outrageous conduct.
